[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 14:15:52 CST 2015


I have (in the recent past) discussed this issue with Commissioner Zhang, and his views are "interesting", to say the least! According to him, a publication merely has to state a date of publication (in the work itself), in order to be Code compliant. That date may be (1) incomplete (e.g. just the year); and/or (2) incorrect! So, according to Zhang, there is no requirement that the actual date of publication be cited in the work itself, just any old date will do!
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/1/15, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 9 January, 2015, 2:45 AM
 
 On 01/08/2015 09:44 AM,
 Richard Pyle wrote:
 > 1. June 1 2014: A
 journal exposes a PDF for a work containing the description
 of a new animal species name online as an "early
 view".  It does not contain a ZooBank registration for
 the work, and the work has not yet been registered in
 ZooBank.
 > 2. June 5 2014: The work is
 registered in ZooBank, but the ZooBank registration does not
 include an ISSN or indication of an online archive. The
 publication date in ZooBank is entered as
 "2014".
 > 3. June 10 2014: The
 ZooBank record is updated to include an ISSN number for the
 Journal.
 > 4. June 15 2014: A revised
 version of the PDF, which includes the ZooBank registration
 number, is posted online. It declares the publication date
 (within the PDF) to be June 16 2014.
 > 5.
 June 20 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include the
 intended archive for the work.
 > 6. June
 25 2014: The publication date entered in ZooBank record is
 updated as June 22 2014.
 > 7. June 30
 2014: Numerous identical copies of a paper-printed edition
 of the work are obtainable.
 > 8. January
 5 2015: The publisher uploads a copy of the PDF to the
 indicated Archive.
 >
 >
 So.... what is the date of publication (in the sense of the
 ICZN Code, for purposes of priority)?
 
 
 "8.5.
 Works issued and distributed electronically. To be
 considered 
 published, a work issued and
 distributed electronically must [...]
 8.5.2.
 state the date of publication in the work itself,"
 
 Glossary:
 "date of publication, n.
      Of a work (and of a contained
 name and nomenclatural act): the date 
 on
 which copies of the work become available by purchase or
 free 
 distribution."
 
 "89.1. Meanings of words
 and expressions. In interpreting the Code, the 
 meaning attributed in the Glossary to a word or
 expression is to be 
 taken as its meaning
 for the purposes of the Code."
 
 The "date of publication" can only be
 June 16, because this is the date 
 that is
 stated in the work. If there is evidence that the work did
 not 
 "become available by purchase or
 free distribution" on June 16, the work 
 does not "state the date of
 publication" (in the sense of the Glossary) 
 "in the work itself". Thus the work
 is not "to be considered published".
 
 Laurent -
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list